Climate change, rising sea levels, and floating continents?

[milk_man]

I was reading about rising sea levels and what the earth would look like if all the ice melted. I read someone's comment and it intrigued me.

"Not accurate, when you remove all that ice from the continents, they shift significantly, rising or falling more than the surrounding sea levels. When the Ice Age ended, the North American continent rose as much as 1000 feet in the area driven down by 10 million square miles of ice. Remeber our continents "float" on molten magma, not fixed foundations."

Very interesting point that I had never heard before. Thoughts on any of this?

 

[eheath]

So the water just goes underneath the contenent eh? Not sure if the person who wrote that comment understands how the earth works.

 

[gyarados]

The mantle isn't liquid tho

 

[milk_man]

So the water just goes underneath the contenent eh? Not sure if the person who wrote that comment understands how the earth works.

I don't think they're claiming that but that the continents somehow rise and fall.. I don't claim to understand it

From another source they brought up that scientists aren't sure if water flows under Antarctica. If water did flow under that would change the implications of extreme melting

 

[milk_man]

Here, let me stir the pot a bit

http://www.aei.org/publication/18-s...st-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year-3/

 

[.MASSHOLE.]

Ah yes, AEI, the Koch's mouthpiece.

The thing is, these statements weren't too outrageous given the knowledge at the time. GMO's only came around in 1983, there has been a shift from oil to natural gas and new the discovery of new oil fields since then, and the EPA has (until recently) been a prominent and important force in bringing attention to ecological issues that affect our health.

Not to mention, these issues haven't disappeared.

We are a few natural disasters away from famines in China, India, and much of Africa, oil reserves will eventually run out, ecological issues have not disappeared and frankly are going to become a larger issue under this administration (see that Dow asked Trump's administration to ignore the science behind chlorpyrifos?), and if not for science, we would have outstripped the ability to feed the majority of this planet.

Science has the potential to fix many of the issues we are going to encounter, but we are going to reach a point where it cannot fix an issue on hand.

 

[.MASSHOLE.]

well a lot of those predictions were all from one or two dudes. then a few of them arent so much predictions but pretty much common sense.

the writer defintily seems like he has a hard slant

Yeah, it's AEI. They'd deregulate everything if they could.

 

[broto]

prostatic rebound would only happen in areas where there is already miles of ice on top of the land..ie Greenland and Antarctica.

also sea level is expected to rise .5-1 meter by 2100 or so. a lot of uncertainty there. could be a lot higher if the east antarctic or greenland collapses which is not impossible. but isostatic rebound takes far longer than that. thousands of years and beyond. and sea level rise is not uniform. some areas are already seeing over 1.5cm of rise per year (certain areas in the bay of bengal)

keep in mind also that half the sea level rise were seeing today is from thermal expansion of water and the other half is mostly melting mountain glaciers. ice sheets haven't even started really contributing yet.

i wouldnt count on prostatic rebound to save NYC, the gulf coast, the bay of bengal, Chinese cities like Shanghai, etc. climate change will relocate tens if not hundreds of millions of people within our lifetimes.

 

[broto]

yo whats prostatic rebound? ive only ever heard about isostatic in class

it's what happens when your phone autocorrect words and you don't proofread your posts

 

[milk_man]

yo whats prostatic rebound? ive only ever heard about isostatic in class

I could just google it, but what's isostatic rebound?

 

[Gods_Father]

Ah yes, AEI, the Koch's mouthpiece.

The thing is, these statements weren't too outrageous given the knowledge at the time. GMO's only came around in 1983, there has been a shift from oil to natural gas and new the discovery of new oil fields since then, and the EPA has (until recently) been a prominent and important force in bringing attention to ecological issues that affect our health.

Not to mention, these issues haven't disappeared.

We are a few natural disasters away from famines in China, India, and much of Africa, oil reserves will eventually run out, ecological issues have not disappeared and frankly are going to become a larger issue under this administration (see that Dow asked Trump's administration to ignore the science behind chlorpyrifos?), and if not for science, we would have outstripped the ability to feed the majority of this planet.

Science has the potential to fix many of the issues we are going to encounter, but we are going to reach a point where it cannot fix an issue on hand.

Like approving biosludge?